Dudded Again – 6 Storeys!

The trend of councillors lopping off a storey or two plus some apartments and then having the developer go to VCAT and winning has continued. The latest example concerns 600-604 North Road, Ormond. The application was for 6 storeys and 57 1 and 2 bedroom units, plus visitor car parking waivers. Officers recommended 5 storeys and councillors decided that 4 storeys was ‘acceptable’. VCAT allowed the 6 storeys and 57 units plus reduction in car parking waivers. Councillors just never seem to learn! They have failed miserably every single time where this ‘populism’ has occurred. Instead of addressing the real culprit (the Planning Scheme) councillors have been contact to continue with this pointless tactic. Of course, it allows them to use VCAT as the total villain.

Adding insult to injury in this case is the substandard performance of council at VCAT itself and the fact that of the 20 or so conditions imposed, the VCAT member overturned most of them. Here is some of what he stated:

VISITOR CAR PARKING

Whilst I understand the concerns of the residents, the evidence is that there is sufficient capacity in on-street car parking areas to accommodate the demands generated by visitors who are unable to secure a car space in the basement. I was not provided with any evidence or data to contradict that of Ms Dunstan (for developer), and also note the absence of an objection from the Council’s Traffic Engineers.

CROSSOVER WIDTH

The Council seeks to have the vehicle crossover to be 6.0 metres in width and in line with a 6.0 metre wide accessway to the basement car parking area, measured between a 300mm wide kerb on each side. This requirement was included upon the recommendation of the Council’s Traffic Engineers, and the Council’s submission did not include an explanation of why the proposed 5.5 metre width is unsatisfactory. ….. Ms Dunstan’s evidence is that the proposed 5.5 metre width is sufficient to allow for the simultaneous two-way traffic flow, and exceeds the 5.0 metre dimensions specified in Clause 52.06 for a passing bay. I accept this evidence and was not provided with any justification for the required 6.0 metre width. …..No justification for the required reduction in the width of the crossover was provided. I will delete Condition No. 1 d).

HEIGHT

As observed in the case of Rosenwald v Glen Eira CC – There is nothing in the Planning Scheme to indicate that a uniform height is sought for buildings within this centre. Indeed, as noted during the course of the hearing, the land within the activity centre is not affected by any overlays that regulate built form outcomes, such as a Design and Development Overlay or Heritage Overlay. Activity centres are commonly characterised by a varied skyline or building profile. Heights vary, and it is not unusual to find that one building is taller than the others. It may well be that this building will be the tallest in the activity centre. If this were to eventuate, we do not consider it to be an unacceptable planning outcome as, ultimately, it is likely that the disparity in the height with other buildings would be confined to something in the order of two storeys. We consider this to represent an acceptable graduation in height within this context. These observations equally apply here….The absence of a height control for the commercial area is an indicator that notably taller buildings than in the residential streets can be contemplated in these locations. I consider that a five-storey height as recommended by the Council’s officers would be reflective of this distinction. The question then becomes whether the additional (top) level should be approved. I have determined that it should be, based on its recessive siting and appearance.

When will councillors learn that until the planning scheme is changed (and quickly) their grandstanding is useless?

When will officers and/or consultants front up to VCAT with a fully documented case of sound evidence, rather than continually relying on developer ‘statistics’. Unless this is done, it is simply a waste of ratepayers’ money to defend cases that don’t have a hope in hell of succeeding.

When will council stop imposing farcical conditions that are doomed to failure because they simply do not accord with council’s own planning scheme? Does this mean that officers don’t even know what their planning scheme contains? That conditions are imposed willy-nilly?

Why has it taken the Minister’s intervention for council to even contemplate changes to its planning scheme, when the past four years of this council alone, illustrate the futility of lopping off a storey when the developer decides to go to VCAT. Or has this been the plan all along?

Related

8 Responses to “Dudded Again – 6 Storeys!”

Your last line is the only assumption that can be formed. It has been the plan all along and this must be stopped by a third party (or new Councillors) as the current Councillors have no desire for anything to change in the future.

FAIR’S FAIR SAYS
In snobby CAULFIELD NORTH a rooming house was approved with occupation offered for 14 guests and there is no parking other than on the street.. Also of interest the garage has officially been approved for habitation of at least two or three persons even though it is on a property boundary and there was no application/information given to neighbours.

Then the units now built at corner of Bond Street and Station Street grew by a mere two storeys and already had parking concessions as the residents were not going to have any friends or visitors and now the whole building has been re-configured and made larger and of course there has not been any extra car-parking required for residents. So in a notshell there are over onw hundred units extra which initiallyt had miniscule parking and as if that wasn’t enough the company has been given the go ahead to close down parking on the street by over 130 apaces from public roadway. Then also Bond Street and Smith Street are to be closed and replaced with some other angular road which the developer thinks will suite the district. The special planning committee of Pilling, Hyams , Esakoff and Lipshitz agreed to all this Station Street situation.

What the hell. Are these bozos plucking figures out from mid air cos they sound good. 6 metres is better than 5.5. How about doing what you’re supposed to like proving your case and coughing up some decent reasons. Planning is a mega disaster in Glen Eira.

The Act says that Council can do as it did, that is, grant a Permit with conditions. The Scheme is notoriously weak and Council has made little effort to improve it over 15 years, but nevertheless there ARE elements in the Planning Scheme to support Council’s decision. Bill Sibonis in his decision ignored these, in fact on the evidence available, he didn’t even do what the Act requires him to do in a Review.

84B specifies matters that the Tribunal MUST take account of and MUST have regard to, yet there is no mention in his decision that he has considered overlooking or overshadowing despite the subject land abutting GRZ. He doesn’t mention the Objectives of Planning in Victoria [eg fairness, sustainability, pleasantness]. He has ignored or makes no reference to the Regional Strategy Plan. Nothing about MSS and how we have 20000 more people than planned due to VCAT.

Even the claim allegedly from Council that “development in the Urban Villages and the Phoenix Precinct ranges up to 10 and 12 storeys” is misleading. Permits for that scale in Carnegie are at the order of VCAT and were resisted by Council as inappropriate.

Council should have done much more to challenge the woeful traffic evidence. Carlyon St doesn’t have an “environmental capacity” of 2000-3000 vpd. It has an unsignalized tee-intersection on a major road. That cuts the environmental capacity to less than half. He didn’t have evidence that the road really could cope with 3000 vpd. He has also ignored all the other traffic that will be generated by similar decisions in future. While I expect Members generally to be unsophisticated in their use of statistics, averages are NOT appropriate for assessing service levels in queuing systems subject to highly variable arrival rates.

Any time a decision-maker talks about increasing setbacks as not being noticeable you know the process has been irredeemably tainted.

If the government introduces its long-awaited [but ultimately disappointing] Better Apartments Draft Design Standards, this development won’t comply.

The development doesn’t even meet basic “housing diversity” requirements. No, people can’t just live in 3-bedroom houses in the municipality. They’re being demolished and replaced exclusively with 1- and 2-bedroom apartments. The population is going up and the supply of 3-bedroom dwellings is going down. Nor is it good social policy to create ghettoes of monoculture.

It is disingenuous to claim “Carylon Street is a street which is situated within an area earmarked for significant change”. Bill couldn’t even get right the role, scale of change, and housing expectations for GRZ. It is NOT “significant change”. DELWP made that very clear in their publication “Reformed Residential Zones fact sheet”. He lists abuttal to a road in RDZ1 but doesn’t list abuttal to GRZ as being relevant. Very very shoddy.

Criticize Council all you like, but this part of the ruling absolutely beggars belief:

By including these requirements for the consolidation of dwellings to provide three-bedroom accommodation, the Council is seeking to introduce some diversity of dwelling types into the development. It relies on policy at Clause 22.07 which promotes a diversity of dwelling types and layouts. As proposed, the building is comprised of one and two-bedroom dwellings. The Applicant’s submission and evidence is that forecast demand is increasingly for accommodation to cater for one and two persons households, and that demand for three-bedroom dwellings is being catered for in the municipality’s minimal change areas where single dwellings and townhouse-style development prevail. I was not provided with any data or evidence to support the Council’s condition and consider that the Applicant’s position is a reasonable one in the circumstances of this Application. Should prospective purchasers seek three-bedroom accommodation, it is open to the Applicant to apply for an amendment to the plans to achieve such an outcome by amalgamating dwellings.

Agreed. Far from ideal. However, the Glen Eira planning scheme remains deficient in our view. For example Clause 22.07 which is the basis upon which council argues does not contain the word ‘bedroom’. The most it states is – “Encourage a mix of dwelling types and layouts”. Dwelling types, if one is to be consistent in interpretation with other clauses of the scheme, refers to ‘town houses, ‘detached dwellings’, ‘multi-unit developments’, etc. There is not a single word in any of council’s policies about ‘bedrooms’. This is in contrast for example to the Frankston planning scheme and other councils who do have ‘preferred neighbourhood character statements’. Frankston states – 22.07 – Encourage the development of medium density housing in a variety of forms including different heights, floor areas, numbers of bedrooms and sizes of private open space
areas. Larger developments should provide a diversity of housing types within the one proposal.